From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "Marek Marczykowski-Górecki" <marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com>,
"moderated list:XEN HYPERVISOR INTERFACE"
<xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen-pciback: Consider INTx disabled when MSI/MSI-X is enabled
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 08:36:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <93b6385c-63c8-1b5a-13c0-838f7c03ccce@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221118023535.1903459-1-marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com>
On 18.11.2022 03:35, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> Linux enables MSI-X before disabling INTx, but keeps MSI-X masked until
> the table is filled. Then it disables INTx just before clearing MASKALL
> bit. Currently this approach is rejected by xen-pciback.
> According to the PCIe spec, device cannot use INTx when MSI/MSI-X is
> enabled.
Similarly the spec doesn't allow using MSI and MSI-X at the same time.
Before your change xen_pcibk_get_interrupt_type() is consistent for all
three forms of interrupt delivery; imo it also wants to be consistent
after your change. This effectively would mean setting only one bit at
a time (or using an enum right away), but then the question is what
order you do the checks in. IOW I think the change to the function is
wrong.
Furthermore it looks to me as if you're making msi_msix_flags_write()
inconsistent with command_write() - you'd now want to also permit
clearing "INTx disable" when MSI or MSI-X are enabled. Which, I think,
would simply mean allowing the domain unconditional control of the bit
(as long as allow_interrupt_control is set of course).
Especially with these further changes I'm afraid at least for now I
view this as moving in the wrong direction. My view might change in
particular if the description made more clear what was wrong with the
original change (476878e4b2be ["xen-pciback: optionally allow interrupt
enable flag writes"]), or perhaps the discussion having led to the form
which was committed in the end.
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-18 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-18 2:35 Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
2022-11-18 7:36 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2022-11-18 12:06 ` Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
2022-11-18 12:27 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=93b6385c-63c8-1b5a-13c0-838f7c03ccce@suse.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jgross@suse.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=marmarek@invisiblethingslab.com \
--cc=oleksandr_tyshchenko@epam.com \
--cc=sstabellini@kernel.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®